Christianity Today

great

Our 3 daughters attend a public school in the urban neighborhood we moved into 10 years ago. Our eldest is finishing up 6th grade this spring. They have always been very much in the cultural minority. The friendships, experiences and yes, the challenges, have enriched our family's faith and allowed the girls to experience the Kingdom in a unique way. We talk about being salt and light...about hope. We spend a lot of time praying for peace in the homes and hearts of classmates. I believe families need to make the best choice for them, but I wonder how many Christians might be influenced by fear in this decision process. Our girls are healthy in every way - they are not suffering emotionally or spiritually from their school environment. We very much believe the diversity and broadened view has actually strengthened them in some exciting ways. God is good, all the time, everywhere!

In response to Ted Hewlett's comment: "Children are to nurture, not for sending into potentially harmful situations as deputy missionaries." The nurturing of our children does not exclude mission; indeed, the gospel necessities it. If while nurturing my child I do not give her a sense of her new call in Christ to participate as a citizen in his sometimes dangerous Kingdom, into what worldview am I nurturing her? If we are seeking to model our parenting on God's own perfect role as parent, then consider that God the Father sent his own Son into a"potentially harmful situation as a deputy missionary."

There may be an unforseen educational benefit for these families. At least for the family in California, their children will have a huge advantage when seeking admission at the University of California, which places a premium on "Excellence in the Local Context". My high-school senior son was turned down at all 4 of the UC campuses he applied to this year, and I'm sort of wishing we had sent him to a different kind of high school.

I've been a public HS teacher here in L.A. for 15 years. My 3 kids all went to public schools in the area and are highly intelligent and educated (my youngest is currently studying at Cornell U. on a scholarship) while loving God with all their hearts, souls, minds and spirits. Over the years, they've learned what to embrace, reject, and keep pondering on--based on what they've been taught--and they are, what I like to call, Christian critical thinkers. I also work with the local youth pastors in my area, bringing unsaved and saved kids regularly to their churches, while mentoring them at school as the Christian Club adviser. While my administrators remain quite hostile to Christian activities being conducted on campus, the other Christian teachers and I have found ways to work around them. If not for parents, teachers and pastors who believe in supporting their local public schools--like the ones in this article--so many more students in my area would be utterly lost and hopeless.

Classical Christian and other Christian private and parochial schools offer a successful and time-tested curriculum where students, teachers and staff can pray, read the Bible and study the Western tradition. Parents, teachers and staff sacrifice for the success and often the survival of their schools. The parents described in this article have rejected Christian education to support public schools that began as Christian (see Martin Luther’s famous “Open Letter to the Councilmen”), but where now prayer and Bible reading are formally forbidden and have been for two generations, criticizing materialism and biological reductionism is discouraged and often forbidden and teaching fundamental subjects like grammar is discouraged in favor of a curriculum associated with educational failure. These parents have made the wrong choice.

Thank you for this beautiful article and beautiful picture of "sentness." "As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world." John 17:18 I pray that this kind of intentional, sacrificial investment in the public school becomes more normal among Christians.

The logic of the comment made by Joseph McDonald seems quite illogical to me because when I told my parents about some of the ideas some teachers were discussing, it became an opportunity for my father to loan some books on the same subject to the teacher in question. I have been so puzzled by some writers and commenters who, even while accepting that we live in "enemy territory" as CS Lewis said, expect to impose the rules of God by lobbying for appropriate legislation. I think what the teachers did is wonderful and in the spirit what remembering, as CS Lewis pointed out, we have a mission to reach out into "enemy territory" and we can be fearless to do this as we remember what David said in Psalm 23. This is in the spirit described by Francis Schaeffer about what his family did at L'Abri, although it is a little like the opposite. What the Schaeffers did was open their home to all and sundry who would come in from the world. I thank God for efforts such as this!

Why do we educate, teach, our children, and what do we teach them? The hearts of these families are very much in the right place . . . until it comes to "school." To be sure, "world view" is much overrated and it is more important to assure our children have right desires, a right heart (see James K.A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom or read Augustine). How can this be accomplished in a school that, necessarily, cannot proclaim Christ's Kingdom and the redemption of the entirety creation as the reason for being alive in this time in history? "Just the facts, ma'am" doesn't cut it in the Kingdom. How can we in good conscience, living in enemy occupied territory (CS Lewis) send our children to schools that have capitulated to the enemy? Home schools may not be the answer in this neighborhood in Richmond, but why vitiate the wonderful sacrifices already being made by not going all the way with a properly constituted Christian school? The right kind of trust can be built in time.

The willingness of these couples to benefit a community by living in it and actively participating is inspiring. But before we extrapolate and conclude that their actions are models for a universal solution, several things should be considered. Principally, we should consider the choice that the couples made to send their children to a local school. Children are to nurture, not for sending into potentially harmful situations as deputy missionaries. I note that Chirmboroza School was already being reformed by a dedicated principal, and that school was open to co-operation with churches. We are not told the present ages of the couples' children, so that the effect of their community environment (such as early familiarity with acts of violence?) has not yet been revealed. There are schools which are unreformed, or hostile to Chistian inrfluence, or anti-Christian in their agendas. In such cases a different course of action would surely be warranted.